
Author 



Title 



Imprint. 



The Adequacy and Economy 
of Some City Dietaries 



The Adequacy and Economy of 
Some City Dietaries 

H. C. SHERMAN 

Columbia University 

J and 

Li Hi GILLETT 

New York Association for Improving 
the Condition of the Poor 



This study and its publication are made possible by 

the Department of Social Welfare established 

by Mrs. Elizabeth Milbank Anderson 



BUREAU OF FOOD SUPPLY 

The New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor 

NEW YORK 

1917 
PMication A'u. tBl 



^p 






\ 



Copyright, 1917, by 
The New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor 

Cornelius X. Bliss .Ik , President 
George Blagden, Treasurer 
Franklin B. Kirkbri'de, Secretary 
Bailey B. Burritt, General Diiector 



77/i" Association and authors wish to thank those who tune 
in any way assisted in this work. They wish especially fo 
thank Dr. A. 11'. Thomas, of Columbia University, ami 
Dr. Mary Rose, of Teachers College, for the reading of the 

manuscript. 



FEB 23 1918 ©CI.A491921 



PRINTED BY 

ATON & GETTINGER 

263 NINTH AVE. 

NEW YORK 



"Vvtf 



A Study of the Adequacy and Economy of 
Some City Dietaries 



Since nearly half of the income of the majority of families is spent in the 
purchasing of food supplies, and since food is such an important factor in the 
welfare of the family, it is important both economically and physiologically 
that expenditure for food be made in such a way as will give the best returns 
for the money spent. 

Any suggestions, however, as to how to improve upon present food habits 
should be based on a knowledge of the adequacy of present family dietaries 
and the relation existing between nutritive value and the different types of food. 

To this end, 102 family dietaries have been carefully collected and analyzed, 
each dietary being an exact record of the amount and cost of the food eaten 
by a family for a period of seven days during 1914-1915. 

The records were secured in three ways. Two-thirds of them were collected 
by the investigator who reached the families through settlements, mothers' 
clubs, health centers, and schools. She made daily visits, sometimes two visits 
daily, to the homes of the families, weighed the food, and supervised very 
closely the keeping of the records. Some studies were made by women who 
were interested and intelligent enough to keep an accurate record under the 
general direction of the investigator but without detailed supervision. The 
remaining studies were obtained through teachers of Home Economics who 
incorporated the keeping of the record into a lesson in household accounts or 
dietetics. Only such of these records were used as gave every evidence of 
accuracy as shown by the data of the record itself, the reputation of the girl, 
and the opinion of the teacher. 

Of the 102 studies, 87 were made in New York City, 9 in Cleveland, Ohio, 
5 in Long Beach, California, and 1 in Stamford, Connecticut. 

Among these 102 families there were 10 which, as supervised pensioners in 
the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, had been 
so influenced by a dietitian that they showed food habits which could hardly 
be taken as typical. The results of these 10 studies were not included in the 
general averages. 

In the 92 remaining families from which the general averages have been 
made there were 343 children and 287 adults, or 3.7 children and 3.1 adults 
per family. As to nationality they were divided as follows: 2^ Irish, 20 
Americans, 17 Hebrews, 13 Germans, 10 Italians, 5 Scotch, and 4 of mixed 
races. The studies were quite equally distributed as to the season of the year, 
46 having been collected during October, November, and December in 19 14 
and January, February, and March in 1915, and 46 during the months of 
April, May, June, July, August, and September in 1915. 

3 



The average cost per man per day was 32.9 cents, with a range from 11.2 
cents to 76.0 cents. The distribution according to cost per man per day 



Chart I 



92 Family Dietaries. (1914-1915) 
Distribution as to Cost per Man per Day 



/j- 



10 




11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 1H5 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75 76-80 

Cost per Man per Day_ Cents 

(Chart I) shows the greatest frequency from 25 to 35 cents, with approximately 
one-fourth spending less than 25 cents and one-fourth more than 40 cents. 

These divisions as to nationality, season of the year, cost and make-up 
of the family seemed to us to be fairly representative of social groups and well 
suited to our purpose. 

Each dietary was analyzed to determine cost per man per day and the 
distribution of this food expenditure among the various types of food such as 
meat and fish, eggs, cheese, milk, cream, butter, and other fats, grain products, 
sugar, vegetables, fruits, nuts and a miscellaneous group including tea, coffee, 
spices, yeast, vinegar, etc. In each case the food value was calculated in terms 
of calories, protein, phosphorus, calcium (lime), and iron per man per day. 
Where necessary this work was supplemented by laboratory analyses to deter- 
mine the composition of the food. Calories and protein were quite generally 
assumed from standard tables,* but much ash analysis was necessary where 
there had not been sufficient work done to establish an average.! 

* Those contained in Rose's Laboratory Hand book for Dietetics were chiefly used for 

calories and protein. 
t For analyses done in connection with this study see Table VI, page 30 of the appendix. 



On the basis of these results the studies have been classified, averaged, 
and examined, to trace relationships between the different types of food and 
the resulting food value, and to determine the adequacy of the ordinary diet 
in so far as the five factors mentioned above are concerned. 

In considering the adequacy of the various food factors, it is obviously 
necessary to have some basis for judgment as to what is adequate for proper 
nutrition. 

Since considerable work lias been clone to determine the energy require- 
ment, a standard allowance for this factor is quite commonly agreed upon as 
3,400-3,500 calories for a man working moderately hard, and that is the basis 
of the allowance used in this study. 

A review of the work done on protein metabolism indicated that in about 
100 experiments which seemed of such a character as to throw light on this 
question, the average protein requirement was approximately 50 grams per 
man per day. If this be increased by 50 per cent "for safety," one obtains 
a standard allowance of 75 grams of protein per man per day. 

Since very little work had been done on the phosphorus and calcium 
requirement, however, it was thought advisable to investigate these factors 
by means of laboratory experiments, and thus get more reliable information 
than was available. Five metabolism experiments of a month each were 
performed on healthy individuals, and upon these results in connection with 
what had previously been done an adequate allowance for each was estimated 
according to the plan used in estimating the allowance for protein. 

No revision of the iron figures was made. 

The results of the dietaries were interpreted in the light of these allowances, 
which in view of all available evidence were judged as best expressing the 
requirements of human nutrition. 

Many of the studies gave evidence of deficiencies in food value in one or 
more important aspects. These deficiencies occurred frequently where the 
amount of money spent for food was adequate to supply sufficient nourishment 
had it been spent wisely. Or in some cases, the amount of food consumed 
was such as to give nearly 40 per cent more energy than was probably needed, 
while the amount of calcium (lime) or iron was barely more than enough to 
provide for the needs of the body. The selection of food was such that had 
these families been getting energy at the rate of 3,500 calories per man, in 
many instances some of the important ash constituents would have been below 
the standard allowance. 

The first classification of the dietaries was on the basis of cost. The 92 
studies were arranged in the order of cost, and averaged in four groups of 23 
each.* In Group I were the dietaries of the 23 families spending the least 
amount for food and Group IV contained those spending the largest amount. 

Table I gives for each group the average cost and food value with a state- 
ment of the allowance used as a basis for judging the adequacy of the food 
value. 

* All figures will be given on the "per man per day" basis. 



Table 1. 92 Dietaries — Averaged in four groups according to cost. 
Average food value per man per day of each group 



Group 


Cost 


Calories 


Protein 


Phosphorus 


Calcium 


Iron 




Cents 




drains 


Grams 


(Ira ins 


Milligrams 


I 


19.2 


2043 


78 


1.14 


0.51 


12.1 


II 


28.2 


2665 


91 


1.39 


0.64 


14.9 


III 


34.7 


3106 


109 


1.60 


0.72 


17.7 


IV 


49.4 


3889 


126 


1.95 


1.01 


20.6 


Standard Al- 














lowance 




2500-3500 


75 


1.44 


0.69 


15.0 



Comparing these averages with the standard allowance given, it would 
seem as though energy and calcium were the factors most often deficient. 
This assumption is strengthened by the summary given in Table 2 of the 
number and percentage of dietaries above and below what is considered a safe 
allowance. By these figures we see that nearly 59 per cent of the families 
were getting below the ordinary accepted standard of 3,000 calories and that 
76 per cent were below 3,500 calories per man per day, the amount upon which 
children's requirements have ordinarily been based. 



Table 2. Number and percentage of dietaries distributed as to 
calories, protein, phosphorus, calcium, and iron 



CALORIES 


PROTEIN 


PHOSPHORUS 


CALCIUM 


IRON 












o.a 




"o.H 




o.ii 




3 


Grams 


3 


Grams 


O 3 
<* CO 


Grams 


3 


Milligrams 


o 3 

Z -JO 


Below 2000 


11 


















2000-2500 


22 


Below 50 





Below 0.96 


5 


Below 0.45 


13 


Below 10 


5 


2500-3000 


21 


50-75 


12 


0.96-1.44 


40 


0.45-0.68 


36 


10-15 


33 


3000-3500 


16 


75-Above 


80 


1.44- Above 


47 


0.68-Above 


43 


15-Above 


54 


3500-Above 


22 



















CALORIES 


PROTEIN 


PHOSPHORUS 


CALCIUM 


IRON 




1— u 


Grams 


X) c 


Grams 


u — 


Grams 


- 8 


Milligrams 


4) G 


Below 
2500 
3000 
3500 


35.9 

58.7 

:u 1 


Below 
50 
75 
100 


0.0 
13 
51.0 


Below 

0.96 
1.44 


5.4 
48.9 


Below 
0.45 
0.68 


14.1 
53 2 


Below 
10 
15 


5.4 
41.3 



There seems to be little danger of protein deficiency, indicating that the 
money spent for food has been spenl in such a way as to supply relatively high 
protein at a sacrifice to the energy. As regards the probable comparative 
danger of insufficient energy and protein, only 12 families were getting less 
than 75 grams of protein as against 54 getting less than ,},ooo calories, while 
none were getting less than 50 grams of protein, but 33 were getting less than 
2,500 calories. Since an adequate supply of energy is essential both to healthy 
growth and activity, and to the proper protection of body tissue, the frequent 
deficiency of energy value in these city dietaries must be regarded as an im- 
portant factor in causing the large amount of malnutrition reported amoig 
school children. 

Had the energy been 3,000 calories in each case, the cause for concern re- 
garding the other food factors would have been much less, as shown in Table 3. 



Table 3. 92 Dietaries distributed as to food value on the basis of 

3,000 calories 



PROTKIN 


PHOSPHORUS 


CALCIUM 


IRON 


(Irams 


U 

U 

XI 

£ 


c 
U 

u 

Ph 


drains 


h 
X 
| 


c 
a; 
U 
u 
V 


drams 


0> 
S 


c 

CJ 

1-1 

CJ 

Ph 


Milligrams 


V 

X 

E 


4-1 
c 
i> 
U 

<L> 


Below 50 
Below 62 
Below 75 
Below KM) 
Above 100 




1 

2 
36 
56 


0.0 

1.1 

11 

39.2 

60.8 


Below 0.96 

Below 1.20 
Below 1.44 
Above 1.44 



4 

28 
04 


0.0 

4.4 

30.5 

00 5 


Below 0.45 
Below 0.57 
Below 0.68 
Above 0.68 


4 
17 

37 

55 


4.4 
18.5 
40.2 

50.8 


Below 10 
Below 12.5 
Below 15.0 
Above 15.0 



3 

18 
74 


0.0 

3.3 

19.6 

80.4 



In only 2 cases was there less than 75 grams of protein at 3,000 calories, while 
40 per cent of the families were getting less than the standard allowance of 
calcium, 30 per cent less than the standard allowance of phosphorus, and 19 
per cent less than that of iron. Next to energy, then, calcium deficiency seems 
to offer the largest problem. The importance of calcium deficiency must not 
be overlooked even though one may not be able to point to clinical symptoms. 
Professor Mendel of Yale says of his recent nutrition experiments that "animals 
may be in excellent nutritive condition in so far as protein is concerned for long 
periods of time while they are still losing calcium from their bones. It then 
happens that suddenly a collapse conn's for which there is frequently no obvious 
explanation." Since this element plays such an important part, not only in 
bone and teeth forma I ion but in organic functions as well, the frequent de- 
ficiency of calcium in the diet is a serious defect in present food habits. 



In the economic study of dietaries it is necessary to consider the different 
types of food used, the influence which each has on the total food value, and 
the relation between cost and nutritive return. For these comparisons foods 
have been divided into the various types as represented in Table 4. 



Table 4. Average distribution of expenditure among various types 

of food in 92 families (divided into 4 groups on 

the basis of cost per man per day) 



Cost per man per day 
Cost per 3000 calories 

Type of Food 



Meat-fish 

Eggs 

Milk 

Cream 

Cheese 

Fats 

Grain products 

Sugars 

Vegetables .... 

Fruit 

Nuts 

Miscellaneous. 

Calories 

Protein 

Phosphorus. . . 

Calcium 

Iron 

Protein 

Phosphorus. . . 

Calcium 

Iron 



Group I 



19.2 cents 
26.1 cents 



Per cent 

36.8 

4.5 

9.1 

0.3 

0.9 

6.7 
22.6 

3.4 

9.0 

2.3 

0.1 

4.3 



2043 

78 grams 
1.14 grams 
0.51 grams 
12.1 milligrams 



107 grams 
1.59 grams 
0.70 grams 
16.7 milligrams 



Group IT 



28.2 cents 

30.3 cents 

Percentage 

Per cent 

29.4 

6.4 

9.2 

0.2 

1.6 

8.1 
17.7 

4.4 

9.0 

7.2 

0.6 

6.2 



Group III 



34.7 cents 
34.3 cents 

Distribution* 

Per cent 

34.9 

5.4 

7.8 

0.1 

0.8 

7.9 
17.9 

3.8 

9.2 

6.4 

0.1 

5.7 



Food Value per Man per Day* 



2665 

91 grams 
1.39 grams 
0.64 grams 
14.9 milligrams 



3106 

109 grams 
1.60 grams 
0.72 grams 
17.7 milligrams 



Food Value per 3000 Calories 



104 grams 
1.57 grams 
0.77 grams 
16.7 milligrams 



102 grams 
1.54 grams 
0.71 grams 
17.1 milligrams 



Group IV 



49.4 cents 
44.7 cents 



Per cent 

31.8 
5.9 
8.4 
1.2 
1.2 
98 

13.1 
3.6 
9.3 
8.2 
0.6 
6.9 



3889 

126 grams 
1.95 grams 
1.01 grams 
20.6 milligrams 



116 grams 
1.69 grams 
0.81 grams 
17.9 milligrams 



* For the amount of each type of food consumed see Table I of the appendix. 



In this table is given the distribution of expenditure for the various types of 
food in each of the four groups as described on page 5 with the corresponding 
return in food value. 

It is clearly evident that the average expenditure in Group I was too low 
to provide sufficient energy for that group. If, however, the cost and food 
factors for each group be recalculated in proportion to 3,000 calories we have 
a basis for comparison which indicates: (1) that if energy be sufficient the 



other food factors will on the average be adequately supplied, and (2) 
that Group I was getting practically the same amount of food value for 26 
cents for which Group IV was paying 45 cents. It should also be noted that 
while only one-fourth were spending for food less than 25 cents per man per 
day, about 50 to 75 per cent were not getting enough energy. 

In order that we may judge intelligently with regard to the relative value 
and economy of various foods, we must know to what extent each factor is 
supplied by the various types of food. Hence special attention has been given 
to those types which supply the largest amounts of the various factors consid- 
ered here, namely, calories, protein, phosphorus, calcium, and iron (Table 5). 



Table 5. Average of 92 dietary studies — percentage expenditure for 
each type of food with the corresponding return in food values 



Type of Food 


Range of 
Expenditure 


Average 
Expendi- 
ture 


Calories 


Protein 


Phos- 
phorus 


Calcium 


Iron 


Meat-fish 


Per cent 
6.4-49.1 
0.0-15.9 
1.3-21.9 

0.0-8.9 
0.0-21.8 
3.8-42.8 

0.0-9.2 
0.4-19.1 
0.0-17.1 
0.0- 7.7 
0.0-17.6 


Per cent 

33.2 

5.6 

9.1 
1.1 
8.1 
17.9 
3.8 
9.1 
6.0 
0.4 
5.7 


Per cent 

16.5 

1.7 

8.1 

0.9 

10.3 

37.8 

10.8 

9.1 

3.9 

0.3 

0.6 


Per cent 

36.3 
4.5 

10.1 
2.1 
0.3 

35.8 
0.1 
8.9 
1.1 
0.2 
0.6 


Per cent 

26.7 
4.0 

18.5 
2.9 
0.3 

28.9 
0.1 

14.6 
2.4 
0.3 
1.3 


Per cent 
3.7 
3.2 

50.2 
7.3 
0.7 

15.3 
0.7 

13.2 
4.7 
0.1 
0.9 


Per cent 
31.4 


Eggs 


6.2 


Milk-cream 

Cheese 


4.7 
0.5 


Fats 


0.4 


drain products .... 
Sugar 


25.0 
0.2 


Vegetables 

Fruit 


26.2 
4.1 


Nuts 


0.2 


Miscellaneous 


1.1 



Be rearranging the dietaries according to the expenditure for the various 
types of food (which ranged for meat from 6 to 49 per cent, and for grain 
products from 4 to 43 per cent) it was evident that deficiencies frequently 
occurred where there had been enough money to supply sufficient food value, 
but where the relation between the various types of food was not well adjusted. 



MEAT AND FISH 



The largest expenditure for any one type of food was for meat and fish, 
or an average for the 92 studies of 33.2 per cent (wherever meat is used in this 
discussion both meat and fish are included). The dietaries were arranged in 
order according to the proportion spent for meat. It was found that only 17 
were spending less than 25 per cent, while 49 were spending more than 7,7, 
per cent of their total food expenditure for this type of food. 

Chartll 92 Dietaries 

Distribution of Expenditure for Meat 
Average Expenditure 33.2% 



dO 



15- 



/o- 



J- 




U 5-10% 10-15% 15-20% 20-25%25-3O% 3o-35%3S-«%40-45%«-50% 

CostperMan perday_ 26.6* 496" 36.8* 33.S* 365* 347* 308 4 28.5* 311' 
Average Calories- 3172 4221 3677 3353 3165 2886 2731 2487 2246 
Cost per 3000 Calories. 210* 35.3* 305* 30.0*34.6' 361* 33.8*332' 415* 



Chart II represents the distribution of expenditure for meat with the 
corresponding cost and calorics for each group. With the exception of the 
first group where only 5 to 10 per cent of the food expenditure was for meat, 
the calories decreased gradually with the increase in the percentage of total 
expenditure for meat. While it is true that those spending relatively most 
for meat were spending least for total food, it is apparent from the chart that 
for 3,000 calories it would have cost those spending over 25 to 30 per cent for 
meat more than they were already spending for food, while those spending 



10 



less than 25 per cent for meat were getting more than 3,000 calories. In 
other words, the greater the percentage expenditure for meat the more expensive 
the dietary for adequate energy. It would have cost the families spending 
from 5 to 10 per cent for meat only 23 cents for 3,000 calories, whereas it would 
have cost those families spending from 45 to 50 per cent for meat 41.5 cents 
for an equal amount of energy. 

When the 92 dietaries were arranged according to the percentage expendi- 
ture for meat and averaged in 4 groups of 23 each, as shown In Table 6, the 
point mentioned above that the percentage spent for meat seems to increase 
with the decrease in total food expenditure, is strengthened. 

Table 6. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the percentage expendi- 
ture for meat and averaged in groups of 23 each 



Group 



AVERAGE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION 
OF EXPENDITURE 



Cost 
per 

Man 
per 

Day 



Meat 



Eggs 



Cheese 



Milk 



Grain 
Prod- 
ucts 



Vege- 
tables 
and 
Fruit 



AVERAGE FOOD VALUE 



Cal- 
ories 



Pro- 
tein 



♦Phos- 
phorus 



♦Cal- 
cium 



Iron 



I 

II 
III 
IV 



Cents 

34.8 
35.7 
31.5 
29.8 



Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


i ml 


21.3 


6.0 


1.6 


9.3 


20.6 


30.3 


6.5 


1.5 


8.7 


16.1 


37.3 


5.5 


0.6 


8.0 


18.2 


42.0 


4.3 


0.9 


8.5 


16.5 



Per 

cent 

18.9 
21.9 
13.4 
12.2 



drams drams drams 



3386 
3129 

2747 
2445 



102 

105 

98 

99 



1.64 
1.62 
1.38 
1.44 



0.86 
0.80 
0.61 
0.61 



Milli- 
gra ms 

17.3 
17.4 
15.4 
15.3 



* Figures here given are for the element. To find the amount of lime (CaO) from the 
amount of calcium (Ca), multiply by 1.4. To find the amount of phosphorus pentoxide 
(T g O s ), "phosphoric acid," from the amount of phosphorus (P), multiply by 2.29. 

This relative increase in meat seems to be more at the expense of vegetables 
and fruit than of any other one type of food. Both energy and calcium seem 
to decrease with an increase in the expenditure for meat. It would have cost 
Group I, 30.8 cents for 3,000 calories with only 21 per cent of the food money 
spent for meat, whereas it would have cost Group IV, 36.6 cents with an 
average meat expenditure of 42 per cent. (For further details with regard 
to the amount of meat consumed and for prices paid for meat, see Tables I, 
II, and V of the appendix.) 

GRAIN PRODUCTS 

Under the head of grain products we include such foods as bread, cereals, 
macaroni, and rice. The 92 dietaries were arranged according to the per- 
centage expenditure for this type of food and averaged in 4 groups of 23 each, 
Group I representing the 23 families spending least for grain products and 
Group IV, the 23 spending the largest amount. The results are given in 
Table 7. 



11 



Table 7. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the percentage expendi- 
ture for grain products and averaged in groups of 23 each 





AVERAGE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION 
OF EXENDITURE 


Cal- 
ories 


AVERAGE FOOD VALUE 
PER 3000 CALORIES 


Group 


Cost 
per 
Man 
per 
Day 


Cost 
per 
3000 
Cal- 
ories 


Grain 
Prod- 
ucts 


Milk 


Meat 


Vege- 
tables 
and 
Fruit 


Fats 
and 

Sugar 


Pro- 
tein 


♦Phos- 
phorus 


♦Cal- 
cium 


Iron 


I 

II 
III 
IV 


Cents 

41.8 
33.9 
31.7 
25.2 


Cents 

41.9 
34.3 
31.7 

27.5 


Per 

cent 

10.1 
15.2 
18.4 
27.6 


Per 

cent 

8.7 

8.1 

10.2 

7.6 


Per 
cent 

35.2 
32.9 
32.0 
32.8 


Per 

cent 

18.5 
16.0 
15.0 
11.4 


Per 
cent 

15.9 
12.5 
12.8 
10.6 


3010 
2967 
3007 
2719 


Grams 

107 
108 
104 
108 


Grams 

1.66 
1.63 
1.57 
1.53 


Grams 

0.84 
0.77 
0.78 
0.63 


Milli- 
grams 

17.91 
17.66 
16.08 
16.81 



* See note at the foot of Table 6 (page 11). 

The most apparent correlation here is the decrease in total cost of food as 
the percentage expended for grain products increases. In Group I, where 
only io per cent of total food expenditure was for grain products, the cost 
per man per day was 41.8 cents, while in Group IV, where the percentage 
expenditure for grain products was over 27 per cent, the cost was only 25.2 
cents. The average number of calories in Group IV was only 2,719, but for 
3,000 calories it would have cost this group only 27.5 cents, while it would 
have cost Group I for the same amount of energy 41.9 cents. It will be noted 
by studying Table 6 that less meat, fat, and sugar were used as the amount of 



Chart HI 

GRAIN PRODUCTS 



Relation of the Percentage Expenditure for Grain Products and the Energy received 
in proportion to Money spent. (92 studies arranged according to the percent- 
age expenditure for grain and averaged in 4 groups_ 23 in each group.) 



Croup I\ 
E\ 

my 



n 3 r 10 „ •/? £0 £5 

rfercenta&e. expenditure for Grain Products in Each Group 



Group l\ 

n\ 
m\ 



£5 JO 
Calories for One Cent, in Corresponding Groups 

Cost per ManperDay Cost per 3000 Calories. 

Croup I 41.8* 41 94 

" I 33.9+ 34.3* 

- S 31.7* 317* 

•• E 252* 27.5* 



7J 



/00 



12 



grain products increased, and when the food values are calculated to the basis 
of 3,000 calories neither protein, phosphorus, or iron is decreased in amount 
by this increase. The calcium seems to have been affected, but it will become 
evident when we consider the influence of the amount of milk used that this 
factor is controlled almost entirely by the milk consumption. 

On Chart III there is represented the relative return in calories for the 
money spent for food by these four groups. Group I, spending 41.8 cents, was 
getting in return only 72 calories for every cent spent, while Group IV, with 
an expenditure of only 25.2 cents, was getting in return 108 calories for every 
cent. It appears then that the greater the expenditure for grain products the 
cheaper the dietary for energy, while the amount of the other food factors are 
not seriously affected. (For the amounts and prices of the various grain 
products used see Tables I, III, and V of the appendix.) 

MILK 

When the 92 studies were arranged in four groups according to the expendi- 
ture for milk in the same manner as for the meat and fish (Table 6), or grain 
products (Table 7), there seemed to be no close correlations evident. The 
percentage spent for milk increased slightly and the percentage spent for meat 
decreased, as the total food expenditure decreased (Table 8). 



Table 8. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the percentage expendi- 
ture for milk and averaged in groups of 23 each 





AVERAGE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION 
OF EXPENDITURE 


AVERAGE FOOD VALUE 


Group 


Cost 
per 

Man 
per 

Day 


Cost 
iper 
3000 
Cal- 
ories 


Milk 


Cream 


Cheese 


Meat 


Vege- 
tables 
and 
Fruit 


Cal- 
ories 


Pro- 
tein 


♦Phos- 
phorus 


♦Cal- 
cium 


Iron 


I 

II 
III 
IV 


Cents 

33.3 
38.0 
29.9 

31.4 


Cents 

34.7 
34.8 

32.8 


Per 

cent 

4.1 

6.8 

9.4 

14.2 


Pa- 
tent 

0.4 

0.8 

0.2 

0.3 


Per 

cent 

1.4 
1.1 
1.4 
0.7 


Per 

cent 

33.5 
32.1 
35.0 
32.2 


Pa- 
cent 

16.4 

15.8 

14.6 

13.8 


2884 
3259 
2655 
2906 


Grams 

95 
111 

94 
104 


Gra ms 

1.35 
1.64 
1.43 
1.65 


Grams 

0.55 
0.74 
0.70 
0.90 


Milli- 
grams 

16.3 

18.4 

14.9 

15.7 



* See note at the foot of Table <> (page 11). 

When the dietaries were arranged according to the amount of calcium in the 
diet, averaged in groups of 4, the average amount of calcium in each group 
calculated, and these figures were compared with the amount spent for milk, 
cream, and cheese in the corresponding groups, a very interesting correlation 
appeared as shown on Chart IV. 

L3 



Chart W 



92 Dietaries arranged according to the Amount 
of Calcium. Averaged in Groups of 4 and compared 
with the Corresponding Expenditure for Milk 






.09- 




.08- 




.07- 




.06 


(/l 




-p 




c 


.05 


V 




c3 




i 


04 


X. 




t- 




,o 


J03" 


t*-. 




Jj 








_2 






.02 


•3 








G 




ex 




£ 


.01 
.00 




1 2 3 4 5 6 V 8 9 lO 11 12 13 1* 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 



14 



The standard allowance for calcium (0.69 gram) is not reached until the 
thirteenth group. By comparing the amount spent for the milk with the 
calcium in the diet it appears that the families were in danger of insufficient 
calcium when they were spending on an average of less than 3 cents per man 
per day for milk. Since milk was quite generally 9 cents a quart when these 
studies were made, it would seem as though every family should be using at 
the rate of at least one-third of a quart of milk per man per day to provide the 
calcium requirements of that family. More milk should be provided whenever 
there are small children, as nearly as possible "a quart of milk a day for every 
child." In the average of these dietaries over 57 per cent of the total calcium 
was obtained from milk and cheese. The grain products and the vegetables 
contributed 12 and 15 per cent respectively, leaving a very small margin to 
be derived from the several remaining types of food. Since the calcium is so 
important, and since the amount in the diet is dependent to such a large extent 
upon the amount of milk used, the use of milk cannot be too strongly urged. 
(For further correlation between the amount of milk used and the amount of 
calcium in the diet see Table IV of the appendix. See also Tables I and V 
for amounts used and prices paid for milk.) 

VEGETABLES AND FRUIT 

Because of the similarity of the function of vegetables and fruit in nutrition 
these foods may be discussed here as one type. 

The dietaries were arranged according to the percentage expenditure for 
vegetables and fruit combined, and averaged in 4 groups as previously. The 
results are shown in Table 9. 



Table 9. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the percentage expendi- 
ture for Vegetables and Fruit — and averaged in groups of 23 each. 





AVERAGE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION 
OF EXPENDITURE 


AVERAGE FOOD VALUE 


Group 


Cost 
Per 
Man 
Per 
Day 


Cost 
Per 

3000 
Cal- 
ories 


Vege 

tables 


Fruit 


Meat 


Milk 


Grain 
Prod- 
ucts 


Cal- 
ories 


Pro- 
tein 


♦Phos- 
phorus 


♦Cal- 
cium 


Iron 


I 

II 
III 
IV 


Cents 

25.6 
35.0 
32.7 
39.4 


Cents 

31.2 

34.6 

34.5 
35.0 


Per 
cent 

5.6 

8.9 
10.5 
10.9 


Per 

cent 

2.5 

4.5 

6.3 

10.9 


Per 

cent 

38.2 
36.3 
30.4 
27.8 


Per 

cent 

9.0 

H.2 
( ).4 
7.9 


Per 

cent 

21.5 

19.1 
17.4 
13.4 


242S 
3072 
2905 

335') 


Grams 

93 
109 
100 

102 


drains 

1.36 
1 .60 
1 .53 
1.60 


Grants 

0.61 
0.70 
0.77 
0.81 


Milli- 
ard ms 

13.8 

17.3 

16.5 

17.6 



♦See note at the foot of Table 6 (page 11). 

L5 



Each of the ash constituents seems to be favorably influenced by the in- 
crease in the use of vegetables and fruit, the iron and calcium rather more so 
than the phosphorus. The relation between the amount of iron and vege- 
tables and fruit is shown in Chart V. 



ChartV 



I. Relation between the Amount of Iron in the Diet and the Percentage Expenditure for Vegetables 
and Fruits. (92 dietaries arranged according to the amount of iron in the diet .averaged 
in 4 groups) 



Group l\ 

n\ 
m\ 
m\ 



5 10 , 15 

Iron per Man per Day_ Milligrams 



Group jt 

E\ 

•■ m\ 



O 5 _ . _ 10 15 

Corresponding Percentage Expenditure for Vegetables and Fruits 

Table io might indicate that the amount of iron was more especially in- 
fluenced by the expenditure for meat, but when the iron figures are calculated 
to 3,000 calories in Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 the amount of iron per 3,000 calories 
seems to be practically the same for each group. We shall see in Chart VII 
that by reducing the expenditure for meat and increasing the expenditure for 
vegetables the iron is increased slightly. This will depend, obviously, on the 
kind of vegetables used. (For the amounts and prices of vegetables and fruits 
used see Tables I and V of the appendix.) 

BUTTER AND OTHER FATS, AND SUGAR 

According to these dietaries, the fats and sugars contribute on an average 
about 20 per cent of the total energy of the diet, but very little of any of the 
other factors considered in this study. The question arises whether there may 
not be danger of a deficiency of some of the ash constituents through too liberal 
a use of fat and sugar? When the dietaries were averaged according to the 
amount of iron at 3,000 calories the relation between the iron and the per- 
centage of energy from the fats and the sugar appeared as shown in Table 10, 
and as represented on Chart VI. As the amount of iron increased there was 
a decided decrease in the percentage of the calories from fats and sugar. 

16 



Table 10. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the amount of iron 
in the diet at 3,000 calories and averaged in 4 groups 





FOOD VALUE AND COST AT 
3,000 CALORIES 


AVERAGE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBU- 
TION OF EXPENDITURE 


Cal- 


Group 


Cost 
per 

Man 
per 

Day 


Iron 


Pro- 
tein 


"Phos- 
phorus 


*Cal 
cium 


Meat 


Milk 


Vege 

tables 
and 
Fruit 


Grain 
Prod- 
ucts 


Fats 


Sugar 


ories 
from 
Fats 
and 
Sugars 


I 

II 
III 
IV 


Cents 

31.7 

33.9 
31.2 

38.4 


Milli- 

gra »i s 

13.90 
16.16 
17.94 
20.40 


Grams 

90 
104 
109 

128 


Grams 

1.37 

1.58 
1.66 
1.78 


Grams 

0.71 
0.77 
0.76 
0.75 


Per 

cent 

28.8 
32.7 
31.4 
39.9 


Per 

CCIlt 

9.7 
8.1 
9.2 

7.5 


Per 

cent 

15.9 
14.5 
15.9 
14.3 


Per 

cent 

17.8 
18.2 
19.6 
15.9 


Per 

cent 

10.8 
8.6 
7.7 

5.5 


Per 

cent 

4.7 

3.8 
3.7 
3.0 


Per 

cent 

26.7 
21.8 
19.1 
16.7 



* See note at the foot of Table 6 (page 11). 

When the dietaries were arranged according to the percentage expendi- 
ture for butter and sugar, the same relationship between fats and sugar and 
the amount of iron in the diet was apparent. In Group I, where only 7-7 
per cent of the money was spent for fats and sugar there were 18.5 milli- 
grams of iron per man per day. In group IV, 16.4 per cent of the money 
was spent for fats and sugar with only 15 milligrams of iron per man per 
day. In many individual cases where the amount spent for fats and sugar 
was above the average, the iron figures were considerably below what 
seemed a safe allowance. 

It would seem then as though some of the money spent for fats and 
sugar might better be spent for vegetables and fruit. (For the amounts 
and prices of fats and sugars used see Tables I and V of the appendix.) 



Chart VI 

IRON. Relation between the. Amount of Iron in the Diet and the percentage of Calories from Fats 
and Sugar. (32 dietaries arranged according to the amount of iron (per 3000 calories)- 
averaged in groups of 23) 

Group 




m 



Group I\ 

m\ 



5 10 '5 

Iron per Man per Day_ Milligrams 



s ,10 is £0 £5 

Percental of Calories from Butter and Stjtfar in corresponding Groups 

17 



From these results it would seem as though the family dietary, at least 
among city people of limited means, is often relatively poor in energy and cal- 
cium, and sometimes also in iron or phosphorus. As the percentage 
expenditure for meat increases the diet tends to suffer in energy. As the 
relative expenditure for grain products increases, the energy is increased. 
Calcium seems to be dependent to a large extent on the amount of milk used, 
and both iron and calcium are favorably influenced by increasing the propor- 
tion of expenditure for vegetables and fruits. In the average diet the expen- 
diture for milk, vegetablts and fruit are much overbalanced by the 
expenditure for meat. If there were an equal expenditure for (i) meat, (2) 
milk, (3) fruit and vegetables, there is little doubt that the results in food value 
would be more favorable to a well balanced diet. In Chart VII we have 
reconstructed a dietary according to the suggested distribution. In each 
case, A represents the allowance as given on page 6 for each of the five 
chief food factors. B represents the amount of each corresponding food factor 
which this family was receiving where 49 per cent of its total food money was 
spent for meat, 26 per cent for grain products, 10 per cent for milk, and 7.8 
per cent for vegetables. 
Chart W 

Chart to show the Increase in Food Value when the expenditure 
for Milk,Meat,and Vegetables and Fruit are made equal. 
A- Standard Allowance 
B- Food Value from the Original Distribution of money 
C-Food Value possible by Redistribution of money 
D- Food Value at 3000 Calories (C) 







CALORIES 






\ 1 


A 1 








PHOSPHORUS 




B LZ 




ZD 




£ H 










PROTEIN 






, 1 


1 


1 






A I 


1 


1 


1 












bCZ 


1 


LZ 


z 












c | 
















° m 


CALCIUM 


m mm 


mm - -, ■:';| 

IRON 




A 1 


I 


1 


1 




A r 


1 


1 


1 








1 




bLZ 


Zl 


r 




C | 






dEZ 




Z~j LZ 


ate mmm 





The Standard Allowances 
used are those given on 
page 6 



Actual Expenditure perMaii per Da/_l 1.3 + 
Cost of 3000 Calories ( B) 28.0+ 

Cost of 3000 Calories (C) 22.3+ 



18 



Since they were spending only 11.3 cents for food, it is evident that they 
could not have been getting what they needed. Had they been spending more 
for milk and vegetables and less for meat, or equal amounts for these three 
types of food, they would, however, have been getting more food value for the 
same money as represented by C in Chart VII. According to the way in which 
they were spending the money, it would have cost them 28 cents for 3,000 
calories, whereas, had they spent equal amounts for milk, meat, and vegetables, 
it would have cost them only 22.3 cents for the 3,000 calories. Although this 
dietary was somewhat extreme in the amount of money spent for food, 18 
dietaries similarly reconstructed give corresponding increases in food value. 
As none of the five food factors here represented would have suffered in any 
case by this redistribution, it would seem as though the average diet would 
be improved so far as food value is concerned by reducing meat and increasing 
milk, vegetables, and fruit. 

The changing of food habits is a gradual process. That there is considerable 
room for improvement is fairly well recognized. That there has been some 
improvement through education and other forces is evidenced by Chart VIII. 

ChartM Improvement in Food Habits through Education. Actual expend- 
iture forMilk,Vegetablesand Fruit Compared with a Proposed Standard 

FVoposed Standard Percentage Expenditure for Mdk, Vegetables and Fruit A.I.C.P 



Actual Percentage Expenditure for Mi Ik, Vegetables and Fruit 

1891-1895 

Average Expenditure of 80 Families 

1914-1915 
Average Expenditure of 92 Families 

1914 

Average of 10 A 1CP Families. Influenced 
by a Dietitian 




The upper line in Chart VIII represents an expenditure for milk, vegetables, 
and fruit as proposed by the Relief Department of the New York Association 
for Improving the Condition of the Poor. The average of 80 families in 1891- 
1895 shows an expenditure for these foods of only hall" what this allowance 
calls for. These families had a high average expenditure for meat. The 
average of 92 families in 1914-1915 shows a slight increase in the relative 
expenditure for milk, vegetables, and fruit. The average of 10 families which 
had been strongly influenced by the educational efforts of the New York 
Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor showed a materially 
greater increase. 

19 



A SUGGESTION FOR THE COMPARISON OF FOOD VALUES 

Discussion of food values may seem confusing to the layman who is told 
that one food is valuable for certain factors, another for other factors plus 
some of those already given, and still another for some of those in one, some of 
those in the other, and has other valuable qualities in addition. If we compare 
the cost of each type of food with the energy and individual nutrients which it 
furnishes, it is difficult to decide which expenditures are more economical. 
Thus in Table 5 (page 9) meat and fish cost one-third of the total expenditure 
for food and furnished about one-third of the protein, phosphorus, and iron, 
but only one-sixth of the energy and about one-thirtieth of the calcium. Grain 
products were less than one-fifth of the cost but furnished over one-third of 
the energy and protein, one-fourth of the iron and phosphorus and about one- 
sixth of the calcium. Milk, costing less than one-tenth of the total food 
expenditure, furnished corresponding amounts of energy and protein but over 
half of the calcium and very little iron. It becomes difficult to judge the rela- 
tive merits of different types of food as soon as we try to consider the various 
factors of food value which we now know to be important Certainly one not 
familiar with food composition and the terminology used is likely to become 
confused. 

To assist in overcoming this confusion, it has seemed worth while to try to 
combine these various factors of food value in such a way that the relative 
values of foods may be expressed by single terms. We have endeavored to do 
this by means of assigning arbitrary values to each factor on the principle of a 
score card. In assigning these arbitrary values we have taken into considera- 
tion the fact that energy is the most frequent deficiency in American dietaries 
and that the majority of dietaries studied would furnish enough of all other 
factors if the energy were adequate. We have, therefore, assigned to energy 
a value of about half its total or combined food value. We have assigned 
equal values to protein,* calcium, phosphorus and iron. Since any score card 
has to be made arbitrarily and the results can be only indicative and relative, 
we have suggested two systems of scoring. The bases of the two systems are 
as follows: 

If we give to energy a value of 60 on the scale of 100, and to protein, cal- 
cium, phosphorus, and iron each a value of 10, the combined value ("composite 
valuation") of a type of food like meat and fish which in the average of 92 
dietaries furnished 16.5 per cent of the energy, 36.3 per cent of the protein, 
26.7 per cent of the phosphorus, 3.7 per cent of the calcium, and 31.4 per cent 
of the iron, would score as given under I in Table 10. 

If a value of 40 were assigned to the energy, and 15 to each of the other 
factors, meat and fish would score as given under II in Table 10. This system 
of weighting would give less prominence to sugar and fat, and slightly less to 
grain products, but place more emphasis on vegetables, milk, meat and eggs. 

* In reality, this amounts to giving a higher valuation to protein since this is counted 
both as protein and as a part of the energy as well. 

20 



Because of this variation in emphasis, it has seemd advisable to give the two 
systems of weighting throughout for purposes of comparison. 

Table 10. Score for meat and fish 





Per cent of 
Food Value 
Supplied by 
Meat and Fish in 
92 Dietaries 


I 


II 




Assigned Values 


Points 


Assigned Values 


Points 


Energy 


16.5 per cent 


60 


9.90 


40 


6.60 


Protein 


36.3 per cent 


10 


3.63 


15 


5.45 


Phosphorus 


26.7 per cent 


10 


2.67 


15 


4.01 


Calcium 


3.7 per cent 


10 


0.37 


15 


0.56 


Iron 


31.4 per cent 


10 


3.14 
19.71 


15 


4.71 
21.33 



This gives us a score for the average combined food value of meat as pur- 
chased by 92 families. Similarly we would find milk to score 13.22 (I) or 
15.78 (II), according to the values used. The relative value of meat and fish 
and milk may be expressed by (I) 19.7 for meat against 13.2 for milk, or (II) 
21.3 for meat against 15.8 for milk. The combined food value ("composite 
valuation") for each type of food according to these two different values is 
given in Table 11. 



Table 11. The relative food value of the various types of food, 
based on the combined food value 





Score for the Combined 


Type of Food 


Food Value 
("Composite Valuation") 




I 


II 


Meat and fish 


19.7 


21.3 


Fggs 


2.8 


3.4 


Milk (and cream 1 


13.2 


15.8 


Cheese 


1.9 


2.3 


Butter and other fats 


6.3 


4.4 


Grain products 


33.2 


30.8 


Sugar and molasses 


().(. 


4.5 


Vegetables 


11.7 


13.1 


Fruit 


3.6 


3.4 


Nuts 


0.2 


0.2 


Miscellaneous 


0.8 


0.8 



21 



These figures would seem to suggest that meat scores higher as a food than 
milk. While this may be true per unit of weight, it is not true per unit of 
cost. For every cent spent for meat we get in these studies only 0.60 (I) 
of a point of food value in return, whereas for every cent spent for milk we 
get 1.45 (I) points of food value, or 0.64 (II) for meat against 1.73 (II) for milk. 

The relation between cost and food value for each type of food is shown in 
Table 12. 



Table 12. To show the relative return in combined food value for 
an equal amount of money spent for each type of food 



Type of Food 


Cost in Per cent 

of Total 

Expenditure 


The Combined Food Value Divided by 
the Per cent of Total Expenditure. 


I 


II 




Per cent 


Points 


Points 


Meat and fish 


33.2 


0.60 


0.64 


Eggs 


5.6 


0.50 


0.61 


Milk (and cream) 


9.1 
1.1 


1.45 

1.73 


1.73 


Cheese 


2.09 


Butter and other fats 


8.1 


0.78 


0.54 


Grain products 


17.9 


1.85 


1.72 


Sugar and molasses 


3.8 
9.1 


1.74 
1.29 


1.18 


Vegetables 


1.44 


Fruit 


6.0 
0.4 


0.60 
0.50 


0.57 


Nuts 


0.50 


Miscellaneous 


5.7 


0.14 


0.14 







By comparing the composite valuation with the cost it will be seen that 
if either of these methods of estimating comparative values is at all valid, the 
money spent in these 92 families for milk and cheese, grain products and veg- 
etables brought a better relative return in food value and was therefore better 
invested than the money spent for meats and fish, eggs, and fruit. 

In making any such comparison, it must be kept prominently in mind (1) 
that the values assigned to the different factors of food value must necessarily 
be more or less arbitrarily chosen so that the resulting "combined value," or 
"score value," rests partly on facts and partly on assumptions; (2) that not all 
the important factors of food value are taken into account in these valuations, 
the "vitamine values" being wholly omitted from the calculations because as 
yet we have not the data necessary to permit us to give them numerical ex- 
pression (it is quite possible that when it becomes feasible to state the "vita- 
mine values" in numerical terms and give them due weight in the composite 

22 



valuation, the expenditures for eggs and butter may appear more economical 
than is indicated by the above table); (3) that the assumption that a given 
amount of protein, of phosphorus, of calcium, or of iron, is of the same value 
in whatever food found, which is certainly not true in detail, and may be very 
far from true in many cases; (4) that any attempt to reduce foods to a single 
basis for comparison necessarily tends to obscure these differences which must 
be kept in mind in order to give each food its proper place in a well balanced 
dietary. Any comparisons based on the use of such arbirtary valuations as 
can at present be assigned must therefore be used with much discretion if 
misconceptions are to be avoided; if so used, however, they may be found 
serviceable as a guide in the economical choice of food, and to some extent in 
teaching relative food values. 

While this method may be open to criticism, it seems much fairer to the 
various foods than stating the relative value in terms of calories only. Chart 
IX compares the two methods. In one case we have the return per unit of 
cost in calories and in the other case the return per unit of cost in terms of the 
"combined" food value ("composite valuation"). Fats and sugars occupy 
a much more prominent place when calories alone are considered, while milk, 
cheese, and vegetables rank much higher in the scale where the ash constituents 
are taken into consideration. 

ehartTX Return in Food Value for Money Spent for Food 4 

Ratio between Cost and Calories Ratio between Cost and "Combined Food Value 





2.0* 



L73 



Chart X shows the relation of the food value of the chief types of food. 
According to the score rani method, milk ranks first as our most valuable food 
in proportion to cost, the grain products second, and vegetables third. When 
stated in terms of calorics, sugar appeared as the most valuable food in pro- 
portion to cost, grain products second, and butter and other fats third. In 
view of the lack of ash constituents in both sugar and fats and oils, comparison 
on the basis of calorics alone is plainly not fair to milk and vegetables. 

23 



Chart X 



Comparison Between Calories and'Combined Food Value per unit of Cost 
for Each of the Main Types of Food. Averageof 92 Studies. 



MILK-CHEESE 
GRAIN PRODUCTS 

VEOETABLES 
MEAT- EGGS-NUTS 
FRUIT 




CALORIES 



50 



/oo 



/50 



£00 



MILK-CHEESE 
GRAIN PRODUCTS 
VEGETABLES 
MEA.T_EGGS.NUTS 
FRUIT 



COMBINED FOOD VALUE 



50 



'50 



£00 



Individual articles of food may be calculated to a basis of combined food 
value in a similar manner. Thus if ioo calories be given a value of 40 on the 
scale of 100, and such quantities of protein, phosphorus, calcium, and iron as 
should accompany 100 calories in an adequate economical diet be given a 
value of 15 each, the score for almonds might be ascertained as follows: 

To every 100 calories of almonds there are 3.23 grams of protein, 0.071 
gram of phosphorus, 0.039 gram of calcium, and 0.0006 gram of iron. If we 
accept for the standard allowance* of man 75 grams of protein, 1.44 grams of 
phosphorus, 0.69 gram of calcium, and 15 milligrams of iron, to every iod 
calories of the 3,000 ordinarily taken as the requirement of a man at ordinary 
labor, there should be 2.5 grams of protein, 0.048 gram of phosphorus, 0.02 
gram of calcium and 0.0005 gram of iron. Then to every 100 calories of 
almonds there is 1.3 (3.23 divided by 2.5) the amount of protein required to 
"balance" the energy value; 1.48 the amount of phosphorus, 1.85 the amount 
of calcium, and 1.2 the amount of iron. Scoring these as indicated above, we 
have the score value for almonds as follows: 



See Page 6 



Assumed Values 


Score 




Points 


Calories (100) 40 


40 


Protein 1.3 x 15 


19.5 


Phosphorus 1.48 x 15 


22.2 


Calcium 1.85 x 15 


27.8 


Iron 1.20x15 


18.0 




127.5 



24 



Since a pound of almonds contains 16.14 100-calorie portions, then a pound 
of almonds has a score value of 2058 (127.5 multiplied by 16.14). Table 14 
gives the score value of the common typical foods: 



Table 14. Score Value (Composite Valuation) per pound of some 
common typical foods. 



II 



II 



Meat — Beef, medium fat. . . . 
Bacon 

Fish — Cod, salt 

Salmon, canned 

Eggs 

Cheese — Cottage 

Hard 

Milk — Condensed, sweetened 
unsweetened 

Skimmed 

Whole 

Butter 

Cream — 10% fat 

40% fat 

Lard 

Olive oil 

Sugar — Brown 

White 

Corn syrup 

Maple syrup 

Molasses 

Grain Products — 

Barley, pearled 

Bread, entire wheat 

graham 

" white 

" rye 

Cornmeal 

Crackers 

Cornflakes 

Cream of Wheat 

Farina 

Force 

Flour, graham 

" rye 

" white 

Hominy 

Macaroni 

Oatmeal 

Rice 

Shredded Wheat 

Tapioca 



UNO 
1750 

1310 
930 

1092 

1287 
4460 

2005 

1556 

514 

612 

2320 

869 
1342 

2450 

2449 



1630 
1324 

1710 
1074 

1341 

1688 
5690 

2267 
1955 

688 
761 

1744 

862 
1150 

1645 

1630 



1231 


983 


1090 


725 


960 


800 


1080 


974 


1978 


2315 


1513 


1470 


1325 


1429 


1409 


1525 


1098 


1060 


1125 


1111 


1444 


1360 


1579 


1433 


1270 


1090 


1460 


1370 


1418 


130S 


2078 


2316 


2001 


21SS 


1502 


1459 


1372 


1257 


131)1 


1147 


1502 


1444 


2245 


2465 


1289 


1159 


2028 


2214 


1262 


1091 



Vegetables — 

Asparagus, fresh 

Beans, dry, white 

" limas. 

" fresh limas 

" string 

Beets 

Cabbage 

Carrots 

Cauliflower 

Celery 

Corn, canned ... 

Cucumbers 

Lentils 

Lettuce 

Onions 

Peas, dry 

" fresh 

Parsnips 

Potatoes, sweet. . 
" white . . 

Radishes 

Rhubarb 

Spinach 

Squash 

Tomatoes 

Turnips 

Fruit — 

Apples, fresh 

" dry 

Bananas 

Dates 

Figs 

Grapefruit 

Grapes 

Lemons 

Olives 

Oranges 

Peaches, fresh 

Pears 

Pineapple 

Plums 

Prunes 

Raisins. . . 

Strawberries. 

Nuts 

Almonds 

Cocoa 

Filberts 

Peanuts 

Pecans 

Walnuts 



279 
2767 
2380 
363 
374 
246 
285 
278 
487 
256 
497 
125 
2834 
223 
263 
2510 
400 
349 
399 
377 
161 
170 
576 
130 
162 
246 



368 
3367 
780 
420 
472 
286 
367 
338 
661 
350 
523 
153 
3464 
299 
295 
2960 
475 
405 
374 
414 
195 
224 
810 
141 
192 
307 



175 


156 


1075 


955 


254 


236 


1298 


1240 


1667 


1782 


167 


169 


286 


266 


199 


228 


1000 


1004 


209 


228 


169 


177 


236 


228 


234 


253 


345 


337 


1144 


1135 


1290 


1235 


293 


355 


1900 


2045 


2900 


3231 


1676 


1752 


2010 


2078 


1556 


1440 


798 


768 



25 



APPENDIX 



Table I. Number of ounces of food used per man per day in each of 
four groups where 92 dietaries are divided on the basis of expenditure. 





Group I 


Group II 


Group III 


Group IV 




Cost per Man 
per Day — 
19.2 Cents 


Cost per Man 
per Day — 
28.2 Cents 


Cost per Man 
per Day — - 
34.7 Cents 


Cost per Man 
per Day — 
49.4 Cents 




Ounces 


Ounces 


Ounces 


Ounces 


Meat and fish — Total .... 

Beef 

Veal 


6.74 
2.96 
0.39 
0.88 
0.56 
0.29 
1.66 

0.78 

0.15 

7.80 
7.49 
0.31 

0.09 

0.64 


7.34 
2.87 
0.42 
0.67 
1.36 
0.89 
1.13 

1 .39 

0.37 

9.07 
8.94 
0.13 

0.06 

1.15 


9.59 
4.46 
0.50 
0.96 
1.81 
0.80 
1.06 

1.40 

0.20 

10.45 
10.25 
0.20 

0.02 

1.36 


11.64 
4.09 
0.50 


Lamb and mutton 

Pork 

Fowl and game 

Fish 


1.64 
2.12 
1.69 
1.60 


Eggs 


1.80 


Cheese . 


0.45 


Milk— Total 


14.73 


Fresh 


14.53 


Condensed 


0.20 


Cream 


0.63 


Butter and other fats. . . . 


2.42 


Grain products — Total . . . 
Bread 


11.51 
9.58 


11.97 
7.37 


14.29 

8.89 


14.03 
7.06 


Sugar 


1.80 


2.97 


3.09 


3.87 


Vegetables — Total 

Potatoes 

Drv vegetables 


11.78 
7.80 
0.30 


13.01 
8.11 
0.41 


13.97 
8.04 
0.33 


18.07 
10.58 
0.36 


Fruit — Total 

Drv fruit 


2.48 
0.04 

0.01 

0.32 


5.55 
0.21 

0.06 

0.45 


8.37 
0.11 

0.19 

0.72 


11.63 
0.33 


Nuts 


0.29 


Coffee and tea 


0.83 






Total food — Ounces 


44.10 


53.39 


63.65 


80.49 



20 



APPENDIX 

Table II. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the amount of meat 
used, and averaged in groups of 23 each. 



Group 


Amount of 

Meat per Man 

per I >ay 


Cost of Total 

Food per Man 

per Day 


Calories 


Cost of Total 

Food per 
3000 Calories 


Amount of 
Meat 

Adjusted in 
Proportion to 
3000 Calories 




Ounces 


Cents 




Cents 


Ounces 


I 


5.0 


24.6 


2548 


29.1 


5.9 


II 


7.5 


30.5 


2857 


31.7 


7.7 


III 


9.5 


32.8 


2900 


34.8 


9.8 


IV 


13.5 


44.7 


3397 


39.9 


11.9 



Table III. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the amount of grain 
products used, and averaged in 4 groups. 



Group 


Amount of 

Grain Products 

per Man per 

Day 


Cost of Total 

Food per Man 

per Day 


Calories 


Cost of Total 

Food per 
3000 Calories 


Amount of 

Grain Products 

Adjusted in 

Proportion to 

3000 Calories 




Ounces 


Cents 




Cents 


Ounces 


I 


?.9 


31.6 


2475 


37.9 


9.6 


II 


10.8 


30.7 


2556 


35.1 


12.7 


III 


13.9 


33.8 


3061 


M.5 


13.6 


IV 


19.2 


36.5 


3613 


29.7 


16.0 



Table IV. 92 Dietaries arranged according to the amount of milk 
used, and compared with the calcium. 



Group 


Amount of 
Milk Used per 
Man per Day 


Amount of 
Calcium per 
Man per Day 




Ounces 


Grams 


1 


4.11 


0.473 


11 


8.68 


OOP, 


III 


il.95 


0.747 


IV 


19.29 


1.474 



27 



APPENDIX 



Table V. To show the range of prices, the average price paid by each 

of four groups (92 dietaries divided on the basis of cost) and the 

number of families using the most common articles of food. 



Range 

of 
Prices 

per 
Pound 



Group I 

Spending 
19.2 Cents 
per Man 
per Day 



No. 

of 

Times 

Used 



Aver- 
age 
Price 
Paid 



Group II 

Spending 

28.2 Cents 

per Man 

per Day 



No. 

of 

Times 

Used 



Aver- 
age 
Price 
Paid 



Group III 

Spending 

34.7 Cents 

per Man 

per Day 



No. 

of 
Times 

Used 



Aver- 
age 
Price 
Paid 



Group IV 

Spending 

49.4 Cents 

per Man 

per Day 



No. 

of 

Times 

Used 



MEAT— FISH 

Beef, uncooked 

" cooked 

" corned 

" dried 

Brains, tripe, kidney, 

liver 

Veal, 

Liver 

Lamb — mutton 

Pork 

" cooked 

Bacon 

Salt pork 

Sausages 

Fish, fresh 

Canned, pickled 

Salt,drie:l and smoked 

Smoked 

Fowl 



DAIRY PRODUCTS 

Eggs 

Milk, fresh 

" condensed . . . , 
Cream 



CHEESE 

American . . 
Cottage. . . 
Cream. . . 
Neufchatel . 
Parmesan . 
Roquefort 



Swiss . 



FATS 

Butter 

Lard and other fats. 
Oil 



SUGAR 

Sugar 

Corn syrup 



Coils 

12-32 
36-70 
10-14 
34-60 

8-15 
16-40 

10-36 
10-30 
23-40 
20-40 
15-24 
15-40 

4-25 
10-36 

9-26 
18-80 
15-2X 



25-60* 
6-1 If 
10-16 

10-30J 



20-28 
9-12 

38-40 
20 

50 54 

40-44 
40 



30-48 
12-20 
14-60 



5- 8 

6- 7 



22 
3 
2 



7 
9 

6 
3 
2 

18 
8 

10 



19 

20 

6 

4 



21 

7 
4 



21 

2 



Cents 

19.4 
39.0 
10, 14 



13 

19 

18 
22 

27 
16 
16,22 
8 
19 
16 

18 



28* 

6t 
11.5 
10.5} 



23 
9 

20 

50 

40 



40 

16 

14,44 



21 
2 



8 
17 



10 
13 
4 
6 
4 
9 



23 

22 

4 



K) 
5 
4 

' 2 

1 



21 

15 

6 



23 
5 



Cents 

20 
40,60 

60 

11 

21 

19^5 
18.0 
25.0 

26 

18 

24 

12 

23 

14 

27 

19 



32* 

8t 
13 

151 



22 
10 
40 

52 

40 



38 

15 

21,42 



uiii s_y i u\j w- i t. i j *. 

* Price per dozen, t Price per quart. | Price per pint. 

28 



23 
4 



3 

7 

9 

17 
8 
7 
3 
11 
12 
5 
4 
1 
6 



21 

23 

7 

1 



20 
12 

5 



22 
3 



Cents 

21 
40 

35 

10 
24 

2L8 
21 
38 
29 
17 
23 
11 
23 
23 
24 
20 



34* 

8t 
14 
20J 



29 
10 
39 
20 
50 

40 



39 

15 
22, 38 



22 
2 



2 
5 
1 

14 

17 
8 

11 
2 
8 

16 
8 
4 
6 

12 



23 

23 

4 

10 



23 

13 

9 



23 
2 



TABLE V.— Continued 



APPENDIX 





Range 

of 
Prices 

per 

Pound 


Group I 

Spending 
19.2 Cents 
per Man 
per Day 


Group II 

Spending 

28.2 Cents 

per Man 

per Day 


Group III 

Spending 

34.7 Cents 

per Man 

per Day 


Group IV 

Spending 

49.4 Cents 

per Man 

per Day 




No. 

of 

Times 

Used 


Aver- 
age 
Price 
Paid 


No. 

of 
Times 
Used 


Aver- 
age 
Price 
Paid 


No. 

of 

Times 

Used 


Aver- 
age 
Price 
Paid 


No. 

of 

Times 

Used 


Aver- 
age 
Price 
Paid 


GRAIN PRODUCTS 
Barley 


Cents 

6-10 
4-10 
7-16 
8-50 
9-40 
15-25 
3-10 
5-12 
4- 6 
6-20 
5-12 
6-10 

5-10 
6-15 
5-10 
2- 4 
1- 5 
2-10 
5-22 
6-12 
7- 9 
5-40 

1- 8 
5-17 
6-12 
3-12 

2- 5 

1- 4 
2-10 
4-15 
2-20 

2- 5 

1-12 

3- 8 
10-13 
10-20 
15-20 

4-28 

4-10 

18-30 

10-20 


7 

19 
19 

5 
4 

4 

13 

8 

6 

14 

12 
2 

2 

12 
3 

3 

3 
14 

I 

1 
2 

23 
2 
8 

10 
5 

11 

5 

2 

5 


Cents 

8 

5 

9 
17 
22 

8 
4.4 

8 
6 
8 

9 

6,9 

2 
2 
3 

8 

15 
2.1 

8 

8 

2 

1.6 

7. 10 
5 
4 
2 

2.6 

4 

24 
10 


3 

19 

12 

12 

8 

3 

3 

4 

18 

6 

6 

12 

8 
2 

4 

4 
5 
2 
3 
1 
7 

19 
3 
3 
1 
6 

23 
3 
7 
6 
3 

13 

11 
2 

1 
1 
3 

3 

8 


L'nits 

8 

6 
11 
15 
12 
25 

3 
10 
4.4 
10 

5 

9 

8 
8 

2.7 
2.7 
2.6 

5 
10 

7 
15 

3 

8 
8.6 

3 
2.5 
1.5 

4 

8 

5 

2 

2.7 
5.5 
10, 13 
10 
20 
8 

24 
12 


8 

22 

11 

12 

13 

3 

2 

2 

16 

9 

13 

11 

5 
2 
3 
4 
7 
3 
4 
6 
1 
7 

10 
6 
4 
1 
4 

22 
5 

13 
5 
2 

17 
6 

1 

2 
3 

3 
2 


Cents 

8 

6 

9 
14 
10 
15 

3 

9 
4.6 
10 

7 

9 

8 
7,8 

6 
2.6 

3 

4 
11 

9 

9 
15 
2.5 
8.5 
8.0 

7 

3 

2 

8 

6 

8 
2.5,5 

2.9 
4 

10 

4, 5 
7 

18 
12 


2 

22 

15 

21 

10 

5 

6 

6 

21 

11 

14 

16 

16 
4 
3 
6 

11 

10 
9 
8 
1 

13 

13 
6 
3 
2 
9 

23 
2 

11 
5 
4 

18 

11 

3 

2 

2 
5 
5 
5 
5 


Cents 
9 


Bread, white 


7 


Rolls 


9 


Cake and cookies 

Crackers 


16 
16 


Cornflakes 


19 


Cornmeal . . .... 


6 


Farina 


9 


Flour 


4 


Macaroni 


10 


Oatmeal . . .... 


7 


Rice .... 


8 


VEGETABLES 

Beans, dry . . .... 


8 


" fresh 


12 


" string .... 


7 


Beets 


2.5 


Cabbage ... .... 


3 


Carrots 


3 


Celery 


11 


Corn, canned . .... 


10 


Lentils 


7 


Lettuce . . .... 


18 


Onions 


5 


Peas, canned 


12 


" dried ... .... 


8 


" fresh . . .... 


6, 12 


Potatoes, sweet 

" white 

Spinach 


3 

2 

5,7 


Tomatoes, canned 

fresh 

Turnips . . .... 


7 

9 

2.5 


FRUIT 

Apples 


6 


Bananas . . .... 


6 


Currants, dry 


10 


Dates. . . 


20 


Figs 


15,20 


Grapes 


14 


Grapefruit 


6 


Jam 


25 


Jelly 


15 








29 



APPENDIX 



TABLE V.— Continued 





Range 

of 
Prices 

per 
Pound 


Group I 

Spending 
19.2 Cents 
per Man 
per Day 


Group II 

Spending 

28.2 Cents 

per Man 

per Day 


Group III 

Spending 

34.7 Cents 
per Man 
per Day 


Group IV 

Spending 

49.4 Cents 

per Man 

per Day 




No. 

of 

Times 

Used 


Aver- 
age 
Price 
Paid 


No. 

of 

Times 

Used 


Aver- 
age 
Price 
Paid 


No. 

of 

Times 

Used 


Aver- 
age 
Price 
Paid 


No. 

of 
Times 
Used 


Aver- 
age 
Price 
Paid 


FRUIT— Continued 


Cents 

3-25 
8-16 
6-16 
4-25 
5- 8 
10-16 

16 

20 
18-24 
20-80 
20-45 
20-80 


2 
1 
3 
5 
1 
2 

4 
15 
15 


Cents 

3, 6 
8 
8 
5 
8 
12,16 

27 
26 
36 


13 

2 
2 
3 
1 
6 

4 

14 
19 
15 


Cents 

8 
8 
6,8 
6 
5 
12 

24 
il 
27 

44 


12 
3 
4 
4 
1 
3 

1 

7 

18 
15 


Cents 

8 
12 

7 

5 

6 
12 

16 

42 
29 
45 


17 

5 ' 

4 

2 

8 

3 

7 

14 
21 
20 


Cents 
7 


Peaches, canned 

" fresh 


9.5 

7 

5, 25 






Raisins 


14 


NUTS 

Filberts 

Peanuts 


20 


Walnuts 


22 


Cocoa and chocolate 

Coffee 


35 
30 




52 



Table VI. — Percentage composition of foods analyzed in connection 

with the dietary study and metabolism experiments. 

(Figures given are on edible portion.) 







Pro- 




Carbo- 
hy- 
















Mois- 


tein 


Fat 


drate 


Total 


CaO 


Ca 


Po0 3 


P 


Fe 




ture 


(Nx 
6.25) 




(By 
Differ- 
ence) 


Ash 












MEAT 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Beef, lean, round 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


(free from visi- 






















ble fat) 




20.55 








0.015 


0.011 


0.443 


0.193 




Beef liver 


67.87 


20.84 


4.74 




1.13 


0.008 


0.006 


0.927 


0.405 




Fowl 


75.04 
68.40 


21.46 

18.85 


3.00 

4.57 




0.96 
7.35 


0.029 
0.043 


0.021 
0.031 


0.473 
0.385 


0.207 
0.168 




Ham, smoked. . . . 




Mutton chops. . . . 


74.90 


19.31 


4.38 




1.17 


0.023 


0.016 


0.547 


0.239 




FISH 






















Blue 


77.34 
80.67 


20.45 
18.22 


0.70 
0.15 


0.34 


1.11 
1.12 


0.032 
0.014 


0.023 
0.010 


0.483 
0.465 


0.211 
0.203 




Cod, fresh 




Halibut 




















.0007 


Herring, fresh. . . . 




















.0016 


Mackerel 


66.91 


20.34 


12.45 




1.35 


0.015 


0.011 


0.692 


0.302 





■M) 



APPENDIX 



TABLE VI.— Continued 


























Carbo- 
















Pro- 




hy- 
















Mois- 


tein 




(Irate 


Total 














ture 


(Nx 
6.25) 


Fat 


(By 

Differ 
ence) 


Ash 


Ca( ) 


Ca 


p»o 6 


P 


Fe 




Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


Per 


FISH 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


cent 


(Continued) 






















Perch 




















.0014 


Porgies 


79.10 
59.12 


18.25 

23.20 


1.74 
16.23 




1.26 
1.93 


0.076 
0.019 


0.054 
0.014 


0.536 
0.531 


0.234 
0.232 




Salmon, canned . . 




" fresh. . . . 


69.94 


20.90 


7.86 


0.21 


1.09 


0.023 


0.010 


0.589 


0.257 




Tuna, canned. . . . 


60.67 


26.60 


11.35 




2.16 


0.009 


0.006 


0.831 


0.363 




White, smoked. . 


68.20 


20.86 


7.30 




3.70 


0.031 


0.022 


0.027 


0.274 




Lobster, canned. 












0.000 


0.069 








Oysters 




















.0081 


CHEESE 






















American 




28.32 








1.184 


0.846 


1.592 


0.608 


0013 


Cottage . . 


72.68 
24.85 


21.34 
34.86 


0.4S 

2S., so 


4.22 

5.48 


1.28 
5.95 


0.140 
1.540 


0.100 
1.101 


0.747 
2.001 


0.326 
0.874 




Parmesan 




Swiss 


29.93 


30.85 


31.05 


2.87 


4.40 


1.520 


1.086 


1.860 


0.812 


.0012 


DAIRY 




PRODUCTS 






















Milk 




3.11 








0.166 
0.144 


0.119 

0.082 


0.213 


0.093 




Cream (31% fat) 




Butter 




0.50 








0.019 


0.014 


0.040 


0.018 




GRAIN 




PRODUCTS 






















Bread, Boston 






















brown 


30.85 


5.97 


0.20 


53.98 


2.92 


0.180 


0.129 


0.405 


0.205 




Bread, Graham.. . 


.0003 


" entire 












0.045 


0.052 








wheat 


32.44 


8.72 


0.28 


50.50 


2.00 


0.033 


0.024 


0.55S 


0.148 




Bread, rye 




" white 




0.22 








0.020 


0.021 


0.201 


0.0S8 




Bran 




















.0114 


Buckwheat 
















0.055 


0.231 


.0011 


Cornflakes 
















0.112 


0.040 




Cornstarch 


12.20 


0.47 


0.41 


86.72 


0.20 


0.025 


0.018 


0.133 


0.058 




Cream of Wheat. 


10.90 


11.84 


1.12 


75.78 


0.50 


0.050 


0.021 


0.355 


0.155 


.0008 


Farina 


9.64 


11.34 


1.23 










0.286 


0.125 


.0008 


Flour, graham. 












0.057 


0.041 


0.833 


0.364 


.0036 


" rye 


12.47 


11.03 


1.72 






0.055 


0.025 


0.590 


0.258 


.0011 


white ... 




















.0007 


" entire 






















wheat 
















0.707 


0.309 


.0035 


Force 


5.95 


0.01 


1.13 


81.32 


2.00 






0.856 


0.374 




Macaroni 


11.18 


12.07 


0.04 


74.82 


0.09 


0.030 


0.022 


0.344 


0.150 


.0011 


Pretzels 


10.29 


10.07 
11.12 


0.37 


73.51 


4.80 


0.058 


0.041 


0.409 
0.740 


0.205 
0.323 




Shredded Wheat. 


.0042 


Tapioca — sago . . . 


11.00 


0.20 


6.23 


S7.71 


6.26 


0.024 


0.017 


0.207 


0.090 


.0016 


Wafers — cheese. . . 


7.05 


14.90 


12.20 


05.25 


2.00 


0.474 f 


0.550* 


0.720 


0.314 




Fig Newtons 


11.50 


4.16 


4.00 


78.47 


1.18 


0.1121 


0.0801 


0.254 


0.111 




Social Teas 


5.00 


0.50 


0.04 


76.87 


1.05 






0.362 


0.158 





* Calculated from the protein in cheese and crackers, 
t Calculated from the protein in figs and crackers. 

Hi 



APPENDIX 



TABLE VL— Continued 



SUGAR 

Sugar, brown (mo- 
lasses) 

Corn syrup 

Maple syrup 

MOLASSES 

Barbadoes 

New Orleans 

Porto Rican 



VEGETABLES 
Artichokes, French 
Beans, dry, lima 
" fresh, 

string 

Brussels sprouts. 

Carrots 

Cauliflower 

Cucumbers 

Egg plant 

Kohlrabi 

Parsnips 

Peas, dry 

Peppers, green . . 
Potatoes, sweet.. 

Rhubarb 

Tomatoes 



Mois- 
ture 



Per 

cent 

4.90 



82.80 



93.04 



94.20 



FRUIT 

Apples 

Bananas 

Grapefruit 

Grape juice, I. . . 

" II.. 

Grapes, Tokay*. 

" Concord* 

Orange juice 



JELLY 

(Commercial) 

Currant 

Strawberry 

NUTS 

Almonds f 

Peanuts 

Peanut butter. . . 
Pecans 



MISCEL- 
LANEOUS 

Coffee infusion. 
Gelatine 



79.90 



6.11 



Pro- 
tein 

(Nx 
6.25) 



Per 
cent 

0.20 



Fat 



3.44 



1.03 



24.56 
0.73 



0.19 



0.43 
0.28 



0.62 



29.81 
11.28 

0.12 



Per 

cent 



0.51 



0.11 



0.10 



0.07 



70.62 



Carbo- 
hy- 
drate 
(By 
Differ- 
ence) 



Total 
Ash 



Per 

cent 

93.50 



11.97 



Per 

cent 

1.40 



CaO 



1.28 



5.34 



4.59 



0.49 



0.38 



10.37 



1.62 



Per 
cent 

0.107 
0.072 
0.156 

0.043 
0.520 
0.730 

0.057 
0.085 



0.044 



0.016 



0.076 
0.008 



0.009 



0.013 
0.018 



0.016 



0.020 
0.018 

0.300 

0.060 
0.121 



0.002 
0.350 



Ca 



Per 

cent 

0.076 
0.051 



P«0 E 



Per Per 

cent ' cent 



0.085 
0.025 
0.112 0.002 



0.245 
0.372 
0.522 

0.041 
0.061 



0.031 



0.011 



0.054 
0.006 



0.006 



0.009 
0.013 



0.011 



0.014 
0.013 



0.214 



0.043 
0.086 



0.001 
0.250 



0.114 
0.128 
0.127 

0.228 



0.037 
0.011 
0.001 

0.050 
0.056 
0.055 

0.100 



Fe 



Per 

cent 



0.260 0.114 



0.078 



0.874 
0.060 



0.025 



0.028 
0.020 



0.045 



0.019 
0.018 

1.071 
0.825 
0.820 
0.767 



0.034 



0.382 
0.026 



0.011 



0.012 
0.009 



0.020 



0.008 
0.008 

0.468 
0.360 
0.358 
0.335 



0.007 0.003 



.0015 

.0010 

.0003 
.0006 
.0002 
.0005 
.0006 
.0006 

.0004 
.0005 
.0010 
.0004 

.0003 
.0005 
.0002 



.0004 
.0002 



.0055 
.0026 



* Tokay grapes analyzed with skins; Concord without skins, 
t Almonds were not blanched. 



32 



Additional copies of this publication may be obtained 
from the New York Association for Improving the 
Condition of the Poor, 105 East 22nd Street, New York 
City, at 25 cents per copy. 



